Osama Bin Laden: An Enemy Of Islam

Do no mischief on Earth (Quran 7:56, 7:74) Those
with good sense must prohibit mischief on earth (Quran
11:116)

Bin Laden has become a significant moral
challenge to Muslims. His alleged association with the
perpetrators of 9/11 attacks raises a major question about
the relationship between Islam and terrorism. If he is
guilty then he incriminates the faith of Islam by using it
as a motivation and justification for his actions. If he is
innocent, then why is he such a big hero?

If Bin Laden
is not guilty of the embassy bombings, of the attack on USS
Cole and the attack on America then why do some Muslims
admire him? Bin Laden has become a symbol of resistance and
empowerment to a community deprived of freedom and
opportunities for self-determination. He is a hero to a
community that has long got used to living with an
overwhelming sense of helplessness. He is a promise that
even the weak and the hopeless can strike back.

If my
understanding of why Bin Laden is a hero is correct then it
means that his charisma is dependent on Muslim acceptance
that he is indeed responsible for the various attacks
against the US, regardless of the availability of evidence.
He is a hero because some Muslims believe that he indeed
pulled of all those spectacular attacks against the world’s
sole superpower. His heroism and his popularity in the
Muslim world is an indictment of him as a terrorist and his
supporters as supporters of terrorism.

But Muslims,
without any reservations, have condemned the attacks of
Sept. 11th as morally reprehensible and unjustifiable.
Prominent member of the Ulema (like Sheikh Qaradawi) have
also established the unIslamic character of the 9/11
attacks. All Muslims agree that terrorism is unIslamic and
deplorable and the perpetrators must be punished to the
fullest extent of the law.

Bin Laden has denied any
connections to the attacks and many Muslims believe that he
is really innocent and are critical of the American
establishment for not providing conclusive evidence against
Bin Laden before launching a war against Afghanistan.

How
are non-Muslims, unsympathetic to the “conditions that
engender violence” supposed to interpret Muslim condemnation
of the attacks and Muslim hero worship of Bin Laden? How can
Muslims condemn terrorism without also condemning
terrorists?

How US media and authorities resolve this
dilemma of Muslim condemnation of the attacks and
simultaneous support for Bin Laden will determine the future
relations not only between the US and Muslim nations, but
also between mainstream America and American Muslims.

As
long as Muslims hesitate to condemn Bin Laden they will be
seen as supporters of terrorism. This issue has also become
a test of Muslim loyalties to America. When and if the FBI
and company do produce conclusive evidence against Bin
Laden, Muslim condemnation of the man will be meaningless.
As of now many Muslims, including some leaders who have no
conclusive evidence of Bin Laden’s innocence have chosen to
err on the side of Bin Laden and not America. This may make
them popular in some pockets of the Muslim community, but it
also makes them suspect in American mainstream.

It
baffles the mind to watch American Muslim leaders waffle
over condemning Bin Laden as a terrorist who is
misappropriating Islamic ideals and incriminating Islam in
his campaign of terror. This man has undermined decades of
hard work by these very same leaders to make Islam more
acceptable in America. The shadow of Bin Laden now looms
large on the decades of efforts by these same leaders at
building bridges with other faith-based communities. The
issue of condemnation stands clearly between American
Muslims and the American government. Rather than perceiving
American Muslims as a national asset and source for
diplomatic expertise that can be deployed in defense of
American interests, the establishment sees American Muslims
as potential suspects, because they are not confident about
where Muslim sympathies lie.

The only reason why there is
no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim
organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing
of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with
the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if
they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest
(maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking
sides with America in this war between America and
Islam.

We Muslims have to realize two important things;
Bin Laden and his tactics, no matter how just his causes,
are detrimental to Muslims as well as to the image of Islam.
The present suffering of the Afghan people is a direct
consequence of their association and support for Bin Laden.
Secondly, we cannot hide behind the issue of evidence and
hedge about condemning those who murder innocent people, in
direct violation of Islamic teachings.

When we say that
there is no evidence against Bin Laden, what we really mean
is that there isn’t enough to meet the legal standards of
American and western jurisprudence. Since when have Bin
Laden and Taliban become subscribers of the Bill of rights
and amendment 14 (due process) of the US constitution? Just
take a look at the way in which Taliban’s courts have meted
out justice in the last five years. The video tapes in which
Bin Laden says that he supports those who attack the US, the
fatwa’s declaring war on the US, his promise of more such
attacks, alone should be sufficient to hang him according to
the legal practices of the Taliban, and for that matter
other Middle Eastern regimes which are notorious for their
kangaroo courts.

Why does Bin Laden and not ordinary
citizens of Afghanistan deserve the full protection of civil
liberties guaranteed by the US constitution? Bin Laden
supports the Taliban and he deserves only what they can
offer. Hang him to the soccer goal post, where the Taliban
have hanged many in the recent past using their medieval
techniques of law enforcement.

Let’s assume for the sake
of argument that Bin Laden has nothing to do with 9/11.
This man is still guilty of the following acts: He has
blasphemed Islam. He has used its sacred principles to
incite murder and mayhem. He has declared war on the US and
called on all Muslims to murder Americans making Muslims
targets for retaliatory attacks. He has exposed millions of
Afghans to war, starvation and misery to save his own skin.
If he were a hero, he would have surrendered. Not because
he was guilty, but to save poor innocent Muslims from the
ravages of war.

He has attacked the moral fabric of
Muslim life by glorifying terrorism. He is trying to embroil
the Muslim Ummah in a global war of death and destruction by
calling the American war on Bin Laden as a war on Islam. His
use of Islamic values have made Muslims look like terrorists
and in most parts of the world people are associating Islam
with violence and Muslims with terror. This man does not
have the interest of Islam or Muslims at heart. He is an
enemy of Islam and Muslims and should be treated as
such.

It is time Muslim scholars and leaders fulfilled
their Islamic duty (Quran 11:116) and condemned Bin Laden
for what he is, and rescued not only Islam but also our
misguided youth from the clutches of this mischief
monger.

In response to the challenges facing Scoop and the media industry we’ve instituted an Ethical Paywall to keep the news freely available to the public.
People who use Scoop for work need to be licensed through a ScoopPro subscription under this model, they also get access to exclusive news tools.

2019 looks like it might well be another really bad, terrible, not so good year for the traditional journalism model globally... on the positive side, smaller independent players with innovative digital models and a more open approach like our ScoopPro service look likely to be more relevant than ever. More>>

ALSO:

‘Socialism’ is more of a political scare word than an objective condition. Even in the US, as Nate Silver’s 538 website pointed out this week there is polling evidence that modern Americans are inclined to treat socialism as meaning ‘equality’ rather than the ‘government ownership or control’ that Americans understood the term to mean back in the 1940s... More>>

ALSO:

The Nelson fire has been a useful warning of things to come, given how climate change will (a) increase the likelihood of reduced rainfall and drought-like conditions in many parts of New Zealand, which – obviously – will raise (b) the fire danger and (c) the cost of providing the communities at risk with the enhanced firefighting capabilities that they’re going to need. More>>